Background
In May two thousand twenty-three, officers executed a search warrant at Marain Rankins’s residence and seized five thousand five hundred dollars in cash stuffed in a shoe. The government filed a complaint seeking to forfeit the currency under Section twenty-one United States Code Section eight hundred eighty-one subsection a paragraph six. Rankins filed a pro se verified claim and answer contesting the action, stating he was the claimant and had an interest in the property to pay restitution fees and buy commissary items while incarcerated. The district court struck Rankins’s claim for failure to comply with Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(B) and entered a default judgment in favor of the government.
The court’s reasoning
The court concluded that Rankins satisfied the requirement of Rule G(5) to state the claimant’s interest in the property by asserting he was the claimant and needed the funds for restitution fees. The court cited United States v. $579,475.00 in U.S. Currency, holding that Rule G(5) establishes only a bare-bones requirement to state the claimant’s interest. The court further noted that a document filed pro se is to be liberally construed under Erickson v. Pardus.
I Marain Rankins is the claimant I have interest in the property because I got restitution fee will have other cost when I get out of jail/prison and also have commissary etc to buy while incarcerated.
What it means going forward
The decision reverses the default judgment and remands the case for further proceedings, ensuring that pro se claimants in civil forfeiture actions are not dismissed for failing to meet overly technical pleading standards regarding their interest in the property.